Posted on 02/21/2012 2:43:05 PM PST by ColdOne
The Supreme Court will once again confront the issue of race in university admissions in a case brought by a white student denied a spot at the flagship campus of the University of Texas.
The court said Tuesday it will return to the issue of affirmative action in higher education for the first time since its 2003 decision endorsing the use of race as a factor in admissions. This time around, a more conservative court is being asked to outlaw the use of Texas' affirmative action plan and possibly to jettison the earlier ruling entirely.
A broad ruling in favor of the student, Abigail Fisher, could threaten affirmative action programs at many of the nation's public and private universities, said Vanderbilt University law professor Brian Fitzpatrick.
A federal appeals court upheld the Texas program at issue, saying it was allowed under the high court's decision in Grutter vs. Bollinger in 2003 that upheld racial considerations in university admissions at the University of Michigan law school.
The Texas case will be argued in the fall, probably in the final days of the presidential election campaign, and the changed makeup of the Supreme Court could foretell a different outcome. For one thing, Justice Samuel Alito appears more hostile to affirmative action than his predecessor, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. For another, Justice Elena Kagan, who might be expected to vote with the court's liberal-leaning justices in support of it, is not taking part in the case.
Kagan's absence probably is a result of the Justice Department's participation in the Texas case in the lower courts at a time when she served as solicitor general.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
“A broad ruling in favor of the student, Abigail Fisher, could threaten affirmative action programs at many of the nation’s public and private universities”
...sounds good to me! Maybe best grades should play a role?
“Maybe best grades should play a role?”
Let the games begin; a “protected gender” against a “protected race”!
This decision is significant, and will determine whether or not “darker” people will be officially considered genetically inferior by our government or not. As long as the government doesn’t allow schools/employers/etc. to have any expectations of them, they are officially & legally inferior to whites and Asians; I expect the “race pimps” will be pressuring the court to stop the “soft bigotry of lowered expectations”./s
If grades and test scores become the primary consideration, certain underachieving groups will be disadvantaged by their own lack of achievement.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
From the 14th Amendment:
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
In their haste to "help" the "disadvantaged" the government and the states put into place policies which "helped" some people and openly abridged the privileges of others. Students who are qualified have a right to ask why they have to have their rights and privileges subordinated to others. The feds can make up all the affirmative laws they want, but under this amendment, states shall not enforce those laws, nor should they.
Another part of the amendment that is equally prohibitive of such preferences:
“nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”
These plans clearly deny equal protection of the laws to certain dis-favored citizens. Actually, by allowing such plans, they essentially are legalizing unequal protection.
“This decision is significant, and will determine whether or not “darker” people will be officially considered genetically inferior by our government or not. As long as the government doesn’t allow schools/employers/etc. to have any expectations of them, they are officially & legally inferior to whites and Asians; I expect the “race pimps” will be pressuring the court to stop the “soft bigotry of lowered expectations”./s”
This applies to “protected class” politicians too. Maxine Waters, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, et al are never subjected to public ridicule for the truly stupid things they say. Even white, liberal democrats are not allowed say things as stupid as black politicians. I’ve always thought that is because the left and the media (who control most of the levers of public ridicule) really don’t expect much from black politicians. And so when Maxine opens her mouth, they hear what they expect.
That’s far more racist than me noticing that Maxine Waters can hardly open her mouth without saying something stupid.
Of course, it’s the same problem in education. If the education establishment expects blacks to be and act stupid, youngsters away from home for the first time will figure out how to be and act stupid and still get their degree.
You’re right about politicians (and Waters is the most pathetic example of it); if the white male Repubs she referred to as “demons” had called her the same, we’d be hearing all kinds of nonsense that they were referring to her dark skin as being scorched by the fires of Hell, etc. The worst part is that for whites that don’t live around blacks, those politicians become the most visible representation of “black” they see (and it doesn’t make a good impression).
The epitome of absurdity concerning lowered expectations for black politicians is demonstrated by the fact that during my lifetime two black “reverends” have campaigned for president, and nobody raised a peep about separating Church & state (yet look at the media’s attacks on Santorum’s faith). It was understood they weren’t “reverends” in the “white” sense, but rather in a black sense, which is simply an unelected “leader” that doesn’t do the 9-5 job thing (akin to a “community organizer”).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.